I’m not extensively educated on the reputation/past tactics of the website.
I do, however, find the linked to piece a spot on analysis of the SM and transgender debate as far as radical feminists are concerned.

well I think theres an issue that she chose to talk about S/M and trangender people in the same article and often in the same breath which sugests she thinks all transgender people are into S/M also she talks of transgender polotics as if its a monolith, as if all transgender people are comming from exactly the same place, which cant posibly be true.

I also dont agree with the argument that becoming a diferent sex upholds gender binaries. Trangender people get killed because they break out of assigned roles. I also think its a myth that when someone has transitioned they will buy into uncomplicated gender steriotypes that shore up gender boundaries.

The link I see between her addressing trans and S/M in the same article is to show similarities in how they position themselves within feminist discussions. I never once read any assertion (even implied) that trans persons *practice* S/M.
Please quote.

“I also dont agree with the argument that becoming a diferent sex upholds gender binaries.”

That’s fine–no need to agree. Perhaps you could quote the specific passage in the article and address it? Saying you simply don’t agree is too broad to be addressed. Clearly, in enthusiastically citing this article, I am agreeing with the author. Without writing an entire post myself, it’s difficult to redpond to your concerns without knowing where you depart.

“Trangender people get killed because they break out of assigned roles.”

I think it’s safe to say *people* get killed for denying assigned roles.
Also, I don’t think this article (and certainly not me) would suggest trans persons getting killed is a good thing. (Why did you say this?)

“I also think its a myth that when someone has transitioned they will buy into uncomplicated gender steriotypes that shore up gender boundaries.”

I don’t completely understand what you are saying. This article says so much so to connect what you are saying to what has been said in this article is difficult without a quote.
Are you referencing this article or attempting a generic trans dialogue/debate?

i understand that she is adressing both S/M and transgender politics but I think she is trying to get the reader to equate them and to think that all trans gendered people have the same standpoint.

And it’s no surprise that what is female and what is male in this view exactly tracks what is already defined as male and female. in relation to

““I also don’t agree with the argument that becoming a different sex upholds gender binaries.”

and ““I also think its a myth that when someone has transitioned they will buy into uncomplicated gender stereotypes that shore up gender boundaries.”

to me the article is saying people who are or have transitioned are buying into uncomplicated gender stereotypes

i wasn’t suggesting that the article or you were saying that transgendered people getting killed was an okay thing just i often think radical feminist writings on transgender issues play down how dangerous it is to be a transgendered person, and that transgeneder people do suffer an enormous amount of opression

My comments were about the specific article itself as I don’t really know where I’m at on transgender issues

nectarine,
Your criticism is of what you think the article means. May I suggest that you apply the context that the writer applies, which is Michfest. Then perhaps you will understand what she is saying. At this point you are disputing words you put in her mouth.

Equate them how? What are they equal on? What is this “same standpoint”? I don’t understand.

““I also don’t agree with the argument that becoming a different sex upholds gender binaries.”

-In referencing the quote from the article I must ask: why do you think people want to become a different sex? If the transpersons are not somehow linking the body parts/biology to the behavior/ways of expression/dress code (gender) then why go to all the trouble and cost of transitioning?

“to me the article is saying people who are or have transitioned are buying into uncomplicated gender stereotypes”

I don’t get this “uncomplicated” assertion. I have not read anywhere in the article where the author implies/says something about the level of complication.
And even if she does (quote, please) wouldn’t the gender stereotype still be a problem, regardless of complication?

“i often think radical feminist writings on transgender issues play down how dangerous it is to be a transgendered person, and that transgeneder people do suffer an enormous amount of opression”

I understand your concern and I agree that they endure a lot of oppression. What would make this better? Radfems having a disclaimer on all writings about transpersons acknowledging this fact? I wouldn’t necessarily be averse to such a disclaimer but could I also ask all transpersons to disclaimer their writings with a note saying: “I recognize that radical feminists are oppressed on the basis of their being radical and feminist.”

Radfems say gender is oppressive–I think that alone acknowledges transpersons’ struggles even if we don’t agree with what their “identities” represent.
When someone brings up the fact that transpersons are killed as some reputable point for these kinds of discussion I see it as a mechanism to villify radfems (or various opposers). That may not be what you are doing nectarine but it’s simply too left field and off-topic to not give me that vibe.
Maybe you can clarify further.

the fact that she is talking about them in the same essay, in the same sense often seems to me she is trying to get the reader to equate them. Just because she doesn’t overtly say it doesn’t mean she isn’t doing it

I know what radical feminists say, I consider myself one. and not all radical feminists think the same thing. I also don’t see saying that trans people get killed as villifying radical feminist. Transpeople get killed because of who they are, when this isn’t mentioned it minimizes their oppression. I think it is more dangerous to be a trans person than to be a radical feminist.

I don’t know why transpeople want to become a different sex, but i do know that often before transitioning trans people suffer extreme mental distress.

nectarine: “I think it is more dangerous to be a trans person than to be a radical feminist.”

It depends on the context. In Iran, for example, it is probably more dangerous to be openly gay or lesbian than to be trans. In fact, gays and lesbians in Iran are pressured or forced to transition to their “appropriate” sex. Being transsexual in Iran is legitimate, whereas being gay or lesbian isn’t–and of course, being any kind of feminist isn’t!

Here’s the situation of transsexuals in Iran:http://www.gaycitynews.com/
site/news.cfm?newsid=18324930&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569346&rfi=6

-This is too broad nectarine. Unless you are saying the author is portraying trans and S/M as *the same thing* then I must stress you have yet to *specify* on *what issues* she is saying they are equal. I have said I feel she has done this as a means to compare their defense tactics in feminist discussions (from a radfem perspective).
-Essays compare two seemingly different topics all the time–unless you just don’t like this format (there goes a lot of essays!) then I still don’t understand *what exactly about the content* of this essay you feel unjustly/wrongly links these topics.

“I also don’t see saying that trans people get killed as villifying radical feminist. Transpeople get killed because of who they are, when this isn’t mentioned it minimizes their oppression.”

-Here’s how I see it as villifying: when the discussion is about transitioning and its relationship to/promotion of gender roles–simply what the effects are of connecting the concepts of biology to gendered behavior and then to call on radical feminists (b/c you did say earlier you thought radfems lacked in trans empathy) to say we aren’t recognizing their oppression.
Here is what that does: 1.) Shifts the debate from a discussion about gender on a theoretical level to individual persons when radfems are not speaking against *people*–we are speaking against *gender*. This inadvertently makes the debate about radfems vs. a group of *people* in a way that dehumanizes trans when we are not engaging the topic in any such way. I feel that places us as villians.
2.) Misses the point that radfems are trying to make about gender (I realize you identify as a radfem): that gender is always oppressive. Much of what we are saying, though ill-received, is that people will be less oppressed (and likely not *killed*) for denying certain gender roles because their will be no gender. We are in many ways *speaking against* the reasons people bully/kill trans.

I will mention again that I think it is a fair point to say radfems should take more time in addressing the oppression trans receive in day to day life. But I think that should be separate from discussions about our problems with gender.

I will typically turn someone away if I feel they are simply trolling–given nectarine’s blog and comments in the community I gave her the benefit of the doubt.
Of course you can see differently (and have).

At some point I will need to draw up exactly what I feel is trolling for the blog since I haven’t given it as much thought…

No one is entitled to be protected forever from hurt feelings. That is a child-like expectation… is the comment I left over there. I’m sure she’s a nice person and has many good qualities, but come on!

Incidently, no wonder these folks advocate transgenderism — they get all the love they NEED. And they can’t handle the least bit of conflict.

*shrug*
I cannot keep track of people switching sides every five minutes. Last I heard of nectarine, she was well entrenched over at RE & co’s.

Hence my assessment above.

On this thread, nectarine is taking a pro-bdsm stance against the other commenters, even if politely, so any wonder I *jumped* to conclusions, given the history?

Defectors, please do me a favour, send me a memo if you switch back to radfem ok? I am still unlikely to forgive you for earning your stormy-bashing badge that seems vital to switching sides to the pro-pornys.

Here’s a good stormy-bash for any newbie defectors: stormy bites the heads off kittens!

Truth is completely irrelevant when earning your stormy-bashing badge of pro-porny honour. They will gobble up any old shit.